• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

ICE and "alien abductees."

 
 
 
RVonse said:
I would not reject someone solely because they reported a UFO incident. Personally, I have never seen one, so I am sceptical. But that does not rule out the existence of aliens. There is just no hard evidence to prove or disprove any of it.

Until proven otherwise, I will at least give people the benefit of doubt that they think they saw what they did.
Click to expand...

You clearly didn't read the article. This batshit-crazy moron claims to have been abducted by them AND to have seen and comunicated with them since.
 
Loren Pechtel said:
He was obviously referring to the evil deeds of ICE.
Click to expand...
I got this. But he erroneously identified them as "alien abductees", i.e. people who got abducted.

As to the "evil deeds", it's a thorny issue that was caused by court decisions that made it impossible to hold illegals with children together. What had been done before is just let illegals with children go, which obviously caused more and more illegals to start bringing children with them as a "get out of detention free" card. It was an untenable situation, poorly handled by the Trump administration, but I can understand why they felt the need to do something.
 
An abductee is someone who is abducted. There is nothing about the phrase alien abductee that makes aliens the perpetrators of abduction. Foreign children abducted by ICE are literally alien abductees and there are no other _real_ alien abductees to discuss. It was clear I was playing with the words and the meaning in context of what I wrote could be parsed and disambiguated by anyone being reasonable.
 
An alien abduction (involving UFO's) has the alien as the abductor.

Whereas

An alien abduction (involving government) has the alien as the abductee.

Just as there are no alien abductions of the first kind, neither are there any alien abductions of the second kind--but for a different reason.

In the first kind, suppose there are aliens. Fine, but they have not came and abducted anyone.

As to the second kind, aliens are locked up, but individuals that are locked up after illegal crossings are not true abductees. Abductions are illegal. What the US is doing is not illegal. It's a liberal misguided use of the term to spark outrage. Even if outrage is warranted, mishandling terms does more to cause conflict than to resolve it.

Calling it an abduction is akin to calling capital punishment murder. Maybe it's a nice sound bite to win over liberal 'thinkers', but the distinction just doesn't go away because of similiarities.
 
There was a court order for reunification with parents that was not being met. Therefore, the children were illegally being held in custody because they could not be reunited. Now if you want to call the imprisonment legal but the continued imprisonment illegal, thus somehow not illegal abduction, that's just splitting hairs. That's like if a person has permission from a parent to take their kid to a carnival but then keeps them for 3 years later, you'd not call it kidnapping. Anyway, I will drop this because I don't want to derail.
 
fast said:
Abductions are illegal. What the US is doing is not illegal.
Click to expand...

Complete and utter bullshit....I believe the UN way more than I do you....

June 5, 2018


GENEVA — The Trump administration’s practice of separating children from migrant families entering the United States violates their rights and international law, the United Nations human rights office said on Tuesday, urging an immediate halt to the practice.


The administration angrily rejected what it called an ignorant attack by the United Nations human rights office and accused the global organization of hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/05/world/americas/us-un-migrant-children-families.html

and...

There has been widespread shock and dismay at the Trump administration’s policy of “zero tolerance” enforcement of criminal penalties for irregular border crossing—even against asylum-seekers—and its most extreme element, the separation of families and the incarceration of children. The criminalization of seeking asylum is unethical; the forced separation of families is abhorrent; and the intentional deployment of the suffering of children is especially vile. But it is also illegal under refugee and human rights law binding on the United States. And President Donald Trump’s new Executive Order does not fix the problem. Here’s why.


First, the administration’s efforts to criminally charge asylum-seekers for crossing the U.S. border irregularly is wrong under international law. The Refugee Convention and its Optional Protocol, which binds the United States, makes clear that treating those seeking asylum as criminals is unlawful—even if they enter irregularly.
Click to expand...

https://www.justsecurity.org/58269/zero-tolerance-detention-children-torture-international-law/

Your public apology would be appropriate....but of course it won't happen.
 
phands said:
Complete and utter bullshit....I believe the UN way more than I do you....



https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/05/world/americas/us-un-migrant-children-families.html

and...

There has been widespread shock and dismay at the Trump administration’s policy of “zero tolerance” enforcement of criminal penalties for irregular border crossing—even against asylum-seekers—and its most extreme element, the separation of families and the incarceration of children. The criminalization of seeking asylum is unethical; the forced separation of families is abhorrent; and the intentional deployment of the suffering of children is especially vile. But it is also illegal under refugee and human rights law binding on the United States. And President Donald Trump’s new Executive Order does not fix the problem. Here’s why.


First, the administration’s efforts to criminally charge asylum-seekers for crossing the U.S. border irregularly is wrong under international law. The Refugee Convention and its Optional Protocol, which binds the United States, makes clear that treating those seeking asylum as criminals is unlawful—even if they enter irregularly.
Click to expand...

https://www.justsecurity.org/58269/zero-tolerance-detention-children-torture-international-law/

Your public apology would be appropriate....but of course it won't happen.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what provokes such a horrendous tone, but should it be that I have made a mistake, I have no qualms in openly admitting as much, but the underlying point shouldn't be discarded because of error.

Aristotle fameously said, "To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true”.

In your post, there are the quoted words: "The criminalization of seeking asylum is unethical; the forced separation of families is abhorrent; and the intentional deployment of the suffering of children is especially vile.

I'm interested in speaking the truth, and though I may not have done so, I spoke under the assumption that the facts are independent of whether the acts are unethical, abhorrent, or vile. That aspect of my message was the thrust; any mistake regarding the facts was incidental; there was no intent to use falsehood to belabor some point--or to instill trust through trickery.

It is very often (and no, not just often) that people (especially liberals) will seize terms for the delight of their misuse. Please don't hold any errors of fact commensurate with such commonly accepted behavior.
 
fast said:
I'm not sure what provokes such a horrendous tone, but should it be that I have made a mistake, I have no qualms in openly admitting as much, but the underlying point shouldn't be discarded because of error.

Aristotle fameously said, "To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true”.

In your post, there are the quoted words: "The criminalization of seeking asylum is unethical; the forced separation of families is abhorrent; and the intentional deployment of the suffering of children is especially vile.

I'm interested in speaking the truth, and though I may not have done so, I spoke under the assumption that the facts are independent of whether the acts are unethical, abhorrent, or vile. That aspect of my message was the thrust; any mistake regarding the facts was incidental; there was no intent to use falsehood to belabor some point--or to instill trust through trickery.

It is very often (and no, not just often) that people (especially liberals) will seize terms for the delight of their misuse. Please don't hold any errors of fact commensurate with such commonly accepted behavior.
Click to expand...

Much mealy-mouthed maundering. You stated that what the US did was legal. It was, and is, not legal.....which was the part of the quote you oh-so-conveniently left out.

You were caught being wrong....put on your big-boy trousers and admit it.
 
phands said:
fast said:
I'm not sure what provokes such a horrendous tone, but should it be that I have made a mistake, I have no qualms in openly admitting as much, but the underlying point shouldn't be discarded because of error.

Aristotle fameously said, "To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true”.

In your post, there are the quoted words: "The criminalization of seeking asylum is unethical; the forced separation of families is abhorrent; and the intentional deployment of the suffering of children is especially vile.

I'm interested in speaking the truth, and though I may not have done so, I spoke under the assumption that the facts are independent of whether the acts are unethical, abhorrent, or vile. That aspect of my message was the thrust; any mistake regarding the facts was incidental; there was no intent to use falsehood to belabor some point--or to instill trust through trickery.

It is very often (and no, not just often) that people (especially liberals) will seize terms for the delight of their misuse. Please don't hold any errors of fact commensurate with such commonly accepted behavior.
Click to expand...

Much mealy-mouthed maundering. You stated that what the US did was legal. It was, and is, not legal.....which was the part of the quote you oh-so-conveniently left out.

You were caught being wrong....put on your big-boy trousers and admit it.
Click to expand...

I'm not prepared to admit that. There are reasons.

If you can demonstrate that the acts are in violation of US law, I'd be much more malleable to be forthcoming with an admission of error.

As to being in violation of international law, I have several concerns.
 
fast said:
phands said:
fast said:
I'm not sure what provokes such a horrendous tone, but should it be that I have made a mistake, I have no qualms in openly admitting as much, but the underlying point shouldn't be discarded because of error.

Aristotle fameously said, "To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true”.

In your post, there are the quoted words: "The criminalization of seeking asylum is unethical; the forced separation of families is abhorrent; and the intentional deployment of the suffering of children is especially vile.

I'm interested in speaking the truth, and though I may not have done so, I spoke under the assumption that the facts are independent of whether the acts are unethical, abhorrent, or vile. That aspect of my message was the thrust; any mistake regarding the facts was incidental; there was no intent to use falsehood to belabor some point--or to instill trust through trickery.

It is very often (and no, not just often) that people (especially liberals) will seize terms for the delight of their misuse. Please don't hold any errors of fact commensurate with such commonly accepted behavior.
Click to expand...

Much mealy-mouthed maundering. You stated that what the US did was legal. It was, and is, not legal.....which was the part of the quote you oh-so-conveniently left out.

You were caught being wrong....put on your big-boy trousers and admit it.
Click to expand...

I'm not prepared to admit that. There are reasons.

If you can demonstrate that the acts are in violation of US law, I'd be much more malleable to be forthcoming with an admission of error.

As to being in violation of international law, I have several concerns.
Click to expand...

Oh, FFS.. the US signed up to that international law. It is the law of the US because of that. Now, please get over yourself, step off the high horse and admit wrongness.
 
Derec said:
Loren Pechtel said:
He was obviously referring to the evil deeds of ICE.
Click to expand...
I got this. But he erroneously identified them as "alien abductees", i.e. people who got abducted.

As to the "evil deeds", it's a thorny issue that was caused by court decisions that made it impossible to hold illegals with children together. What had been done before is just let illegals with children go, which obviously caused more and more illegals to start bringing children with them as a "get out of detention free" card. It was an untenable situation, poorly handled by the Trump administration, but I can understand why they felt the need to do something.
Click to expand...

No. "Alien abductees" could either refer to those abducted by aliens (the context you're thinking of), or aliens that are abducted (the context he used it.)
 
phands said:
fast said:
I'm not prepared to admit that. There are reasons.

If you can demonstrate that the acts are in violation of US law, I'd be much more malleable to be forthcoming with an admission of error.

As to being in violation of international law, I have several concerns.
Click to expand...

Oh, FFS.. the US signed up to that international law. It is the law of the US because of that. Now, please get over yourself, step off the high horse and admit wrongness.
Click to expand...
Nay, I think you need to do a lil better. It won't take too terribly much, but I think the ball is in your corner. You're gonna need to produce a bit more than the espousal, claims, or utterances attributed to fake news to make your case. If your attitude escalates any further, I'll make it harder, so suck it up and keep your emotions in check.
 
fast said:
phands said:
fast said:
I'm not prepared to admit that. There are reasons.

If you can demonstrate that the acts are in violation of US law, I'd be much more malleable to be forthcoming with an admission of error.

As to being in violation of international law, I have several concerns.
Click to expand...

Oh, FFS.. the US signed up to that international law. It is the law of the US because of that. Now, please get over yourself, step off the high horse and admit wrongness.
Click to expand...
Nay, I think you need to do a lil better. It won't take too terribly much, but I think the ball is in your corner. You're gonna need to produce a bit more than the espousal, claims, or utterances attributed to fake news to make your case. If your attitude escalates any further, I'll make it harder, so suck it up and keep your emotions in check.
Click to expand...


I proved you wrong...YOU need to suck it up. It's the law....internationally, and in the USA. As to fake news......where the fuck did you drag that up from?

And... "malleable to be forthcoming"....did you study grammar with Sarah Palin?
 
phands said:
fast said:
Nay, I think you need to do a lil better. It won't take too terribly much, but I think the ball is in your corner. You're gonna need to produce a bit more than the espousal, claims, or utterances attributed to fake news to make your case. If your attitude escalates any further, I'll make it harder, so suck it up and keep your emotions in check.
Click to expand...


I proved you wrong...YOU need to suck it up. It's the law....internationally, and in the USA. As to fake news......where the fuck did you drag that up from?

And... "malleable to be forthcoming"....did you study grammar with Sarah Palin?
Click to expand...

You've done no such thing. I doubt you could prove that throwing trash out on the highway is a crime, not because it isn't but your skilllessness.

Lost any trade towers lately alien-lover? I ask because your attitude is atrocious.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom